Rizos v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rizos v. New York City Housing Authority

226 A.D.2d 323, 642 N.Y.S.2d 229, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4629

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 30, 1996·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Norman Joslin, J.), entered February 22, 1995, which, after a jury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $150,000 against defendants New York City Housing Authority and Salvatore Alioto, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

It was within the province of the jury to disbelieve the [324]*324defense testimony that there were scratches on the face of plaintiffs husband severe enough to warrant the arrest of plaintiff for assault in the third degree (see, Malte v State of New York, 125 AD2d 958, 959-960, lv denied 69 NY2d 607). In light of defendants’ burden of proving probable cause, the jury verdict for plaintiff on the false arrest claim therefore had a rational basis (see, Woodard v City of Albany, 81 AD2d 947).

Plaintiffs husband cannot be said to have been under plaintiff’s control, given the pattern of extreme domestic violence that continued, according to plaintiff, up to the time of trial on her tort claims. Thus, the trial court properly denied defendants’ request for a missing witness charge.

We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Norman Joslin, J.), entered February 22, 1995, which, after a jury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $150,000 against defendants New York City Housing Authority and Salvatore Alioto, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

It was within the province of the jury to disbelieve the [324]*324defense testimony that there were scratches on the face of plaintiffs husband severe enough to warrant the arrest of plaintiff for assault in the third degree (see, Malte v State of New York, 125 AD2d 958, 959-960, lv denied 69 NY2d 607). In light of defendants’ burden of proving probable cause, the jury verdict for plaintiff on the false arrest claim therefore had a rational basis (see, Woodard v City of Albany, 81 AD2d 947).

Plaintiffs husband cannot be said to have been under plaintiff’s control, given the pattern of extreme domestic violence that continued, according to plaintiff, up to the time of trial on her tort claims. Thus, the trial court properly denied defendants’ request for a missing witness charge.

We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Rizos v. New York City Housing Authority, 226 A.D.2d 323, 642 N.Y.S.2d 229, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4629 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

226 A.D.2d 323 (Rizos v. New York City Housing Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related